Posted on 08/22/2012 12:12:50 PM PDT by Publius
Paul Ryan is Romney’s pick for Vice President and now Ayn Rand’s name is on everyone’s lips.
Many on the left are pillorying Ryan as an unrealistic “ideologue” because of his Rand connection. Many on the right accede, quickly trying to set aside Ryan’s admiration for "Atlas Shrugged" as youthful indiscretion. “Every young conservative has a fascination with Ayn Rand at some point,” Romney’s strategist Eric Fehrnstrom says dismissively.
But hold on. If we actually consider the essence of what Rand advocates, the idea that her philosophy is childish over-simplification stands as condemnation not of her position but of the many adults from whom this accusation stems.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
When you put a sock in yours.
Get someone to help you find your head so you don’t plug the wrong end, Misterioso.
I quit. You’re too quick-witted for me.
From the article: “There is a fundamental conviction which some people never acquire,” Rand wrote in 1969, “some hold only in their youth, and a few hold to the end of their days—the conviction that ideas matter.” The nature of this conviction? “That ideas matter means that knowledge matters, that truth matters, that one’s mind matters. And the radiance of that certainty, in the process of growing up, is the best aspect of youth.”
That’s good. I could tell you were draining out fast. :)
In this country we all owe a great deal to many who have sacrificed themselves for the good of their fellow citizens... soldiers killed or maimed in battle come to mind. I am not familiar with her advocating someone giving their life or fortune for their country... especially since this is a concept always encouraged in totalitarian regimes.
Yet I know of many instances where someone did voluntarily give up their life or their fortune for the good of others and it was a good thing despite having no apparent benefit to the person who made the sacrifice.
You are still (slightly) missing the point.
If you believe the greatest thing you can do is self-sacrifice, then being successful in that goal is the most "selfish" thing you can possibly accomplish. You have succeeded on you own terms.
In my own case, I flipped that.
I was a liberal at 20 and became a conservative after reading Atlas Shrugged at age 38.
At twenty, most people are too immature and not lived life long enough to have and keep a valid philosophy.
I almost believe they should put a "Not To Be Read By Anybody Under Thirty" stickers on her books.
Ayn Rand never advocated “her own top down enforced amorality”. She strongly objected to “top/down elitest rule”.
Actually, in practice, libertarians are for the anti-moral homo sex dominance via government control. They are training atheists to cleanse the public square of historical Christian tracks. It’s called cultural cleansing and communists do it. Rand thought she was clever: combine the communist social and cultural structure with economic freedon and, viola, we have social and economic freedom! That is a lie.
Watch what they do; ignore their flapping lips!
Well, I can’t do anything about your naming me a liar so I guess there is no sense in speaking with you anymore.
Since this is my last communication with you, Billthedrill, I want to tell you that Rand’s Utopian social ideolgy is not what happens in practice like Marx’s social and economic ideology...much like the social Marxist ideology it is born of. She thought she was clever in combining Marxist social ideology with Western capitalism in power. Alas, economic freedom goes hand in globe with Judeo-Christian culture. And social marxism PROMISES economic marxism. The culture of social marxism shouts down the culture of Western morality which is needed to be understood and accepted by the majority (melting pot) for economic freedom. Communists named it America’s ideology of freedom our National religion. Same with atheist Rand. She did not acknowledge the human soul.
God bless.
And God bless you, to, and I mean it!
What you have described is what exists now with absolutely NO influence from Ayn Rand.
She gave this as the most succinct statement of her views on political interaction.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
With her sage guidance, men meet each other in the marketplace in voluntary contract to the mutual benefit of each other. What you have presented is antithetical to Ayn Rand's writing and makes you appear somewhat foolish.
Marxism is all about Lies. They hate Rand’s thinking which is summed up in this section of the article, here:
“There is a fundamental conviction which some people never acquire,” Rand wrote in 1969, “some hold only in their youth, and a few hold to the end of their days—the conviction that ideas matter.”
The nature of this conviction? “That ideas matter means that knowledge matters, that truth matters, that one’s mind matters. And the radiance of that certainty, in the process of growing up, is the best aspect of youth.”
In other words-—the individual matters. Marxists are collectivists and crush individuals and control all the ideas allowed—for the “greater” good and “they” decide whose “mind” is more important than others, without competition and merit based societies. The oligarchy in a Marxist State is god—and decide everything for everyone.
Christianity was loathed by Rand—she failed to realize (because she never gave birth) to how necessary “selflessness” is for the family unit-— a mother/father/child-—for the flourishing of the next generation.
You will not have emotionally strong human beings without parents who sacrifice for their children. Selfishness was important to Rand-—Do your own thing without sacrificing your ambitions for others. Human beings-—in a civilized culture-—need self-sacrifice for family life and civil societies, but particularly for the next generation.
Rand’s idea of “moral” behavior could be summed up by her own actions of constantly cheating on her husband-—I think with his best friend. As Dostoevsky stated (and his mind was superior to Rand’s-—”Without God, everything is permissible.” No Universal Truth will lead to chaos or totalitarianism and using human beings as a means to an end—never allowed in Christian Ethics.
If one is capable of following Christian Ethics-—they will be extremely happy-—it is what happened to many atheists—after they converted-—like CS Lewis-—whom she loathed. Without God, there is no Justice and no Hope on earth-—it is a miserable place. With God-—there is Hope and Love.
What an excellent analysis of Ayn Rands position. I have always wanted to put into words what is great about her, and what is not so great. Thank you again ss
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.